Locked
Into Al-Tanf U.S. Military Concedes It Lost The Race To Occupy
South-East Syria

The
U.S. military has, for now, given up on occupying south-east Syria.
Recent remarks at the Department of Defense press conference concede
the defeat of its original plans.

Let
us recap: The U.S. military had occupied the al-Tanf border station
between Syria and Iraq some 12 kilometer east of the
Jordan-Syria-Iraq border triangle.

The economically important road
between Damascus and Baghdad runs through al-Tanf. When Syrian
government forces moved towards the al-Tanf area the U.S. military
bombed them and unilaterally claimed a "deconfliction-zone",
i.e occupied territory, around the station.

The
U.S. plan was to disrupt any connection between Syrian government
held areas in the west and Iraq in th east by moving north from
al-Tanf up to the Euphrates river valley around Deir Ezzor. The
neoconservatives and Zionist propagandists claimed that
this was necessary to interrupt the "Shia crescent" that
allegedly would connect Iran through Iraq and Syria with Lebanon. The
U.S. forces would thereby interrupt Iranian support for Hizbullah
forces defending Lebanon from Israeli incursions. But the "Shia
crescent" was never more than an idea. Iran supplies to
Hizbullah have never depended on a land connection alone.

The
"crescent" connection was not disrupted when the U:S.
occupied Iraq or when ISIS held the area.

The real
U.S. plan was much larger.
It wanted to control a Sunni corridor from the Saudi-Iraqi border in
the south through Anbar province in west-Iraq through south-east
Syria up through the Kurdish held north-east Syria to Turkey. This
was the planned
"Salafist principality" a
2012 Defense Intelligence paper had talked about.

The
Syrian forces (red), with Iraqi support, sabotaged the U.S. plans by
connecting west-Syria with the Syrian Iraqi border northward of the
U.S. held area of al-Tanf (blue). They met allied Iraqi forces at the
border north-east of al-Tanf and are now proceeding north-east along
the border towards Abu Kamal and the Euphrates valley.

The
Russian military command told the U.S. that any attack on those
forces would be a very unfriendly act that would be severely
punished. To make the point Iran fired medium range missiles from
Iranian territory to Islamic State held areas in Syria. The Russian
navy fired cruise missiles from the Mediterranean towards similar
targets. The message was that the small U.S. contingent in al-Tanf
would be toast if the U.S. military further messed around with the
Syrian forces. Meanwhile Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) from Iraq,
allied with Syria, closed off al-Tanf from the south. The U.S. forces
there have nowhere to go but home.

The
U.S. plans in south Syria, in the west as well as in the east, have
failed for now. Unless the Trump administration is willing to invest
significant more forces and to openly and against all laws wage war
on the Syria government and its allies the situation there is
contained. The Syrian forces will over time recapture all the (blue
colored) land in the south that is currently held by the various U.S.
proxies and other terrorist groups.

All
recent provocation attempts by the U.S. failed to disrupt the Syrian
government plans and its push
towards Deir Ezzor.

In
a little reported press conference on Friday the U.S. military
practically conceded the
defeat of its plans:

WASHINGTON
(AP) — The U.S. military coalition fighting the Islamic State
would welcome
a concerted effort by the Syrian government or its Iranian-backed
partner forces to defeat IS in its remaining strongholds in eastern
Syria,
a U.S. spokesman said Friday.

Army
Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the coalition, told reporters at the
Pentagon that the U.S. goal is to defeat IS wherever it exists. If
others, including the Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian
allies, want to fight the extremists as well, then "we
absolutely have no problem with that," he said, speaking from
Baghdad.

Q:
[...] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed
militias and regime forces continue to pose to your forces and your
partner forces in the At Tanf -- Abu Kamal area?

COL.
DILLON:
Well if the Syrian regime -- and it looks like they are making a
concerted effort to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that
they can do that, that is not a bad sign. We are here to fight ISIS
as a coalition, but if
others want to fight ISIS and defeat them, then we absolutely have no
problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and to
Deir Ezzour,
if we -- as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can
focus on what it is we're there to do, without having any kind of
strategic mishaps with the regime or with pro-regime forces or with
Russians, then that is -- we're
perfectly happy with that.

In
a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in
al-Tanf are now very constricted in their movement:

...
if the regime is -- has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal,
then we
are going to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from
al-Tanf] with our partner forces.

Somewhat
later the point is made again and even clearer - al-Tanf is now
useless and the Syrian army is free to do what it does:

COL.
DILLON: So
what I was saying about that is that, out of the
At Tanf area, we have used that to
train our partner forces and to continue to -- to
fight ISIS,
you know, if
they are in and around that area.

You
know, now that the regime has moved in, and they
have made some significant, you know, progress,
as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if
they want to fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do
so, then, you know, that -- that would be welcome.

We
as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're
in the killing ISIS business, and that is what we want to do. And if
-- if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are going to,
again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are -- are
doing just that in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means
that we don't have to do that in those locations.

So
I guess that -- what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will
continue to train our partner forces. We will continue to do patrols
in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But if
our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there,
that's okay.

NEWSFLASH:
The Pentagon and, even more important, the U.S. commanders in the
Middle East, have finally recognized the basic facts of life.

There
is no way the Syrian government and its allies will let the U.S. have
south-east Syria or let it occupy the country including the Syrian
army garrison in Deir Ezzor which is currently surrounded by Islamic
State forces. The Syrian army and its allies will liberate Deir Ezzor
and the whole Euphrates valley. The U.S. military has now conceded
that. There will be some huffing and puffing from the neoconservative
corners but I doubt very much that this that this decision will be
overturned or that this is a ruse. There is simply no strategic value
for the U.S. in occupying south-east Syria and no will to defend it
against determined resistance of capable opposing forces.

My
congratulations to Syria and its allies. This battle is, for now,
won.

BREAKING:
No partition of eastern Syria; US “welcomes Syria destroying ISIS”
there

US
rules out "land-grab" in Syria; says Syria 'welcome' to
defeat ISIS and free Deir Ezzor.

Colonel
Ryan Dillon, the spokesman for the US led Coalition against ISIS,
has spoken of
the Syrian government today in more positive terms than any other US
official since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011.

Specifically
Dillon is reported to have said that the US led anti-ISIS Coalition
is purely focused on destroying ISIS, and that to the extent that the
Syrian government also acts to destroy ISIS that is welcomed by the
US led Coalition and by extension by the US

If
it looks like they are making a concerted effort to move into
ISIS-held areas, and if they show that they can do that, that is not
a bad sign. We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if
others want to fight ISIS and defeat them, then we absolutely have no
problem with that.

A
very strong health warning is in order. Colonel Dillon is a
relatively low ranking official though one holding an important post.
It is not clear to what extent he actually speaks for the US
government. Of course there is also the possibility –
unfortunately unavoidable when considering any statement made by any
US official on the Syrian issue – that he is not speaking honestly
and that his words are intended to deceive.

However
there is one strong reason for thinking that Colonel Dillon’s words
may indeed reflect current US policy. These are the further
comments he made specifically about the Syrian army’s advances
towards the town of Abu Kamal, an important town on the Iraqi border
in the Euphrates river valley

If
they want to fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do
so, then that would be welcomed. We as a coalition are not in the
land-grab business. We are in the killing-ISIS business. That is what
we want to do, and if the Syrian regime wants to do that and they’re
going to put forth a concerted effort and show that they are doing
just that in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzor or elsewhere, that means that we
don’t have to do that in those places.

These
appear to be carefully chosen words, which touch closely on the
present situation in Syria.

As
I discussed recently, the situation in Syria has been transformed in
recent weeks by the lightning
advances of the Syrian army,
which following the relative stabilisation of the situation in
western Syria has been advancing against ISIS into eastern and
central Syria along two axes – one in central Syria, from Palmyra
along the main highway towards the besieged eastern city of Deir
Ezzor, and the other in the north, from Aleppo through southern Raqqa
Province and also towards Deir Ezzor.

In
the last few days the Syrian army has launched a further offensive
against ISIS from the south, with Syrian troops advancing northward
along the Iraqi border into Deir Ezzor province from the new
positions they recently captured from ISIS just north of the US
military base in al-Tanf. Here is how the Al-Masdar news
agency described
this development two
days ago

Backed
by several paramilitary allies, the Syrian Arab Army made an
impressive advance in the Syrian desert along the Syrian-Iraqi
borders in the direction of Deir Ezzor entering the oil-rich province
for the first time in years since the fall of the Syrian Badiyah in
the hands of the Islamic State terrorists.

On
the route of the advance, the Syrian Armed Forces captured Ard
Al-Washash, Al-Waer Dam, Al-Waer Canyon region, and much of the
desert near the T2 Pumping Station. The latest advances leave the
government forces less than 25 km from the T2 Base in Deir Ezzor’s
southeastern countryside and some 100 km away from ISIS’s
stronghold of Albukamal which many consider to be the terror group’s
new capital following the siege (and fated fall) of Raqqa by the
US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

As
it stands, the SAA is now 120 km from the besieged city of Deir Ezzor
from its southern flank, 135 km from Palmyra axis, and 115 km from
the Raqqa axis in what seems to be a race by the different SAA
formations to reach the desperate city in as little time as possible
as ISIS hammers its resilient defenders with an offensive after the
next hoping to break it before the allied troops lift the siege.

The
reference to “ISIS’s stronghold of Albukamal” in the Al-Masdar
report clearly refers to Abu Kamal, the town referred to by Colonel
Dillon in his comments. What Colonel Dillon is saying is that
the US troops in al-Tanf will not interfere with or block this
advance.

As
such Colonel Dillon’s words look like a public statement directed
first and foremost to Moscow reiterating a message which has almost
certainly been made by the US to the Russians in private, which is
that the US is not going to interfere in the Syrian army’s
operations to relieve the siege of the eastern city of Deir Ezzor,
and will not try to block the Syrian army’s moves into central and
eastern Syria because of some US plan to partition Syria. Note
that Colonel Dillon specifically refers to Deir Ezzor in his
comments, and specifically denies that the US is in the “land-grab
business”.

The
background to these comments is the Russian warning given to the US a
few days ago directly following the shooting down of the Syrian SU-22
fighter near Rusafa that Russia would henceforth switch off the
‘de-confliction’ hotline with the US and would track US aircraft
if they flew west of the Euphrates. This is whatI
said about this warningthen

…….the
single most important reason for the strong Russian reaction is what
caused the US to shoot down the SU-22 down in the first place.

As
the report from the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights shows, the
real reason the SU-22 was shot down was because it was supporting a
Syrian army offensive to capture the strategically important town of
Rusafa from ISIS.

Rusafa
lies south east of Tabqah – the main base of the US backed
Kurdish militia in this area – and within striking distance of the
main highway between Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, the eastern desert city
currently besieged by ISIS.

By
capturing Rusafa the Syrian army is now in a position to intercept
columns of ISIS fighters who might try to flee Raqqa for Deir Ezzor.

The
Syrians and the Russians have in recent weeks complained that the US
and the Kurds have been doing nothing to prevent ISIS fighters
fleeing Raqqa for Deir Ezzor, and in recent days there have even been
reports of movements by Kurdish militia to
try to block the
Syrian army’s offensive to relieve Deir Ezzor.

The
shooting down of the Syrian SU-22 fighter appears to have been
intended as a warning to stop the Syrian army from capturing Rusafa,
so as to block the Syrian army’s attempt to relieve the pressure on
Deir Ezzor.

The
Russian warning to the US looks in turn to have been intended to make
clear to the US that this sort of interference in the Syrian army’s
operations to relieve Deir Ezzor is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated.

The
US has heeded the Russian warning. The various statements made
by the US and by various US officials today, though full of the usual
bluster about the US defending itself and its allies anywhere and
everywhere, in fact clearly signal that the US is backing off.

Colonel
Dillon’s words are the US’s public response to the Russian
warning, given by a low level official so that the extent of the
extent of the US climbdown is minimised.

The
Russian warning was “intended to make clear to the US
that….interference in the Syrian army’s operations to relieve
Deir Ezzor is unacceptable and will not be tolerated”. Colonel
Dillon’s words say publicly what the US is almost certainly telling
the Russians privately, that the Russian warning has been heeded, and
that no further US “interference in the Syrian army’s operations
to relieve Deir Ezzor” is contemplated.

My article of
six days ago saying that the US was backing down following the
Russian warning was – understandably enough – disputed by many
people, though the evidence of what was happening was clear enough.

Colonel
Dillon’s comments – which almost certainly reflect the policy of
General Mattis, the US Defense Secretary who seems to be the US
official now in actual charge of the Trump administration’s Syrian
policy – should put the matter beyond doubt.

With
the US giving the Syrian army a green light to sweep through eastern
and central Syria to crush ISIS in Deir Ezzor the stage is being set
for a final apocalyptic battle in eastern Syria between the Syrian
army and the group. In Al-Masdar’s
words

Should
the Syrian Army reach Deir Ezzor, the Islamic State’s presence in
Syria will be challenged. The terrorist group knows it, and will
muster the bulk of its power for this apocalyptic battle that will
permanently change the dynamics of the Syrian war- hopefully bringing
the tortuous war to its long-awaited end.

Further
into the future, it seems that following the Russian warning and the
US climbdown whatever plans there still were in the US to separate
eastern Syria from the rest of Syria and to set up a Sunni client
state there have been abandoned.

Though
there is no doubt that some people in the US remained committed to
these plans (which was why the Syrian SU-22 fighter was shot down) I
doubt that these plans ever had the wholehearted support of the
uniformed military in the Pentagon or of the President himself.
Following the Russian warning such support as there still was
for these plans seems to have collapsed. As I have long made
clear, I doubt they were ever viable anyway.

That
does not mean that the US has abandoned its attempt to gain influence
in Syria. What it means is that having given up on eastern
Syria it will now focus on setting up its Kurdish client state in
northern Syria instead.

WASHINGTON
— The U.S. military coalition fighting the Islamic State would
welcome a concerted effort by the Syrian government or its
Iranian-backed partner forces to defeat IS in its remaining
strongholds in eastern Syria, a U.S. spokesman said Friday.